If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Nah, records only have its psychoactive use going back up to 10,000 years ago. But hey, the internet isn't primal, antibiotics/meds aren't primal, alcohol isn't primal, cars aren't primal, TV isn't primal, electricity isn't primal, cell phones aren't primal, and we use a lot of these, some everyday.
And then there is agriculture that isn't primal yet we eat chicken, cows, veggies and fruit that has been evolved to contain more sugar. I don't see Grok hunting cows and chicken but it's not bad for us. Certainly a lot healthier than some of the processed junk there is nowadays.
Is going over to my noisy neighbours' house and slapping them all Primal? I really really want to and Grok probably would have. Right? How about threesomes? Tax evasion? Evading a predator, am I right?
Something is primal for humans if it is fundamental, essential, elemental, vital, or intrinsic to the survival of the human species.
A secondary meaning of primal would be that it pertains to something that is inborn, innate, or primeval.
I aver that no sort of intoxicant meets the first definition. I feel secure to say that it doesn't meet the second definition either. However, as old as I am, I was not around during that period to become familiar with the forms of 'recreation' adapted by people of that age.
No, not anymore than corn-fed beef or modern fruits are. Like them, it's been selectively bred to have very little in common with the species as it would have existed thousands of years ago, and is grown in a way that makes a big difference as well. I think it's far better for your body than drinking alcohol, though.
Does it mean, Was it used by the first societies? Or does it mean, is it healthy?
As to the second question, Of course not. Your business what you do to yourself, of course - although if you, for example, drive or operate machinery under its influence, it's not merely that. There are also some cancers, including cancer of head, linked with use. So if you do use it better be sure your food includes plenty of fat-soluble vitamins and that you get plenty of sleep in total darkness.
Post 9 is correct to say that it's not all the same. People have crossed cannabis sativa and cannabis inidica so that they can grow it indoors under lights in colder climates. Those crosses are very much stronger and very much nastier than what was once imported to colder climes - sometimes local isn't best! - and possibly account for the increase in psychosis among people using it.
As to the first question, I can't recall any evidence of that. But certainly herding and agricultural civilizations have used it, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's been used for far longer. For herders, see Herodotus on the Sycthians, for example - 73 to 75 on this page:
As an example of agriculturalists - the Zulus used it. Interestingly, that included use of it for military purposes. Their witchdoctors had bred versions that were very high in THC, but low in the compounds that have a sedative effect. (The Zulus had quite a pharmacopeia for battle use, including a mushroom that contains the same toxin as fly agaric - would make you think you were more-or-less unstoppable.)
As far as modern hunter-gatherers go, the Bushmen smoke dagga - South african term for hemp. They also love tobacco - they actually smoke cigarettes with the lighted end inside their mouths so as to lose no smoke. Probably they smoked dagga before tobacco became available - tobacco is a New World plant. I'd think their usage may go back a very long time indeed.